[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti-users] Towards a better understanding of JSON-LD (Was: MTI Binding)
+1. Mixing would be very bad
Sent from my iPhoneRe: Decisions around the format of STIX 2.0 don't automatically propagate to the CybOX level - those decisions would have to be made in the CybOX TC.
Yuck.
IMHO: Having mixed formats would be worse than any one choice, this should be a CTI wide decision. The choice of a wire format for CTI does not preclude the same information (or a subset of it) in other formats, as we have discussed.
From: Jason Keirstead [mailto:Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 3:56 PM
To: Cory Casanave
Cc: Barnum, Sean D.; Wunder, John A.; Jerome Athias; Jordan, Bret; Shawn Riley; Jacobsen, Jasen W.; cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [cti-users] Towards a better understanding of JSON-LD (Was: MTI Binding)
RE "I think the idea of putting current XML inside of RDF or JSON would be a mess and add a lot of complexity and constraints, go there with caution."This is going to be an issue no matter what format is decided upon, unless we abandon the effort and keep the existing XML format as-is - because of CybOX.Decisions around the format of STIX 2.0 don't automatically propagate to the CybOX level - those decisions would have to be made in the CybOX TC. And since CybOX has many more consumers than simply STIX, it could (and probably will) become an even more difficult task to change formats. Therefore I think it has to be assumed that no matter what format STIX 2.0 ends up in, that format needs to assume it will have embedded XMLThe alternative would be for STIX to abandon CybOX as the CTI data matching method for STIX, and create a new language. That would be an undertaking.Sent from IBM Verse
Cory Casanave --- RE: [cti-users] Towards a better understanding of JSON-LD (Was: MTI Binding) ---
From:
"Cory Casanave" <cory-c@modeldriven.com>
To:
"Barnum, Sean D." <sbarnum@mitre.org>, "Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>, "Jerome Athias" <athiasjerome@GMAIL.COM>
Cc:
"Jordan, Bret" <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com>, "Shawn Riley" <shawn.p.riley@gmail.com>, "Jacobsen, Jasen W." <jasenj1@mitre.org>, cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:
Fri, Oct 9, 2015 3:19 PM
Subject:
RE: [cti-users] Towards a better understanding of JSON-LD (Was: MTI Binding)
Re: How will the JSON (or RDF) serialization work with the XML-based extensions we use now?
In terms of RDF, including the JSON-LD serialization, extensibility is a strong point. Both types of “things” as well as types of properties can have “subtypes & supertypes”. Since a subtype (or sub property) can have any number of parents (multiple inheritance) we don’t get into the issues we find in XML Schema relative to a single tree of specialization, you can specialize across and combine multiple viewpoints. Being able to specialize the “verbs” as well as the “nouns” across multiple viewpoints has proven very useful. If necessary an “instance” can also have multiple types (multiple classification), so perhaps the same individual can be a “Person” and a “Victim”.
Remember that everything in RDF has a URI – this is true of “types” as well as “instances”. Therefor a “controlled vocabulary” is just another set of RDF URIs that you reference, and these can be added to and extended as new URIs are defined. A sub-community can also define their own, if your policies allow.
A lot of the complexity of extensible XML schema comes from inventing mechanisms to solve these 3 problems, which are just a given in RDF. Note that UML fully supports the above concepts directly so can model the RDF semantics without bending the paradigm.
Data markings are just another OWL vocabulary, there are a few to choose from, including one specific to provenance. I have not used this vocabulary but respect the leaders very much.
Field level referencing is done with a URI. Queries are done with SPARQL.
I think the idea of putting current XML inside of RDF or JSON would be a mess and add a lot of complexity and constraints, go there with caution.
While I think RDF/JSON-LD would make a great serialization – I would not use it for my high level models. All schema have limits (as required by their technology stack – in the case of OWL it is tableau reasoners & triples) and we will want to support other technologies, so I would still use UML for the logical model and produce the RDF. That way we don’t bind our concepts into a single runtime stack which we know will change over time.
-Cory
From: cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Barnum, Sean D.
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 12:52 PM
To: Wunder, John A.; Jerome Athias
Cc: Jordan, Bret; Shawn Riley; Jacobsen, Jasen W.; cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cti-users] Towards a better understanding of JSON-LD (Was: MTI Binding)
>How will the JSON (or RDF) serialization work with the XML-based extensions we use now?
[sean]I would generalize this a bit to something like "How will the JSON (or RDF) serialization support the concept of extension points (the things implemented in the XSD using xsi:type) for areas where there is known variation or lack of current community consensus?"
The issue is not how would JSON support xsi:type. It is how it would support extensibility. The current spec (UML) has already abstracted this issue away from a question specifically about xsi:type. That is just the way it would typically be implemented in an XML serialization.
>How will JSON (and RDF) handle digital signatures?
[sean] I would add things like:
How will JSON (or RDF) handle data markings?
How will JSON (or RDF) handle controlled vocabularies?
How will JSON (or RDF) handle Type constraining/conversion for properties?
How will JSON (or RDF) handle field-level referencing and querying?
I make no assertions that these are not possible in JSON but I have yet to see anyone demonstrate how they would be done. I think we need to avoid assumptions and make sure that any given serialization choice can effectively support all the capabilities needed.
I also don’t think this is necessarily a complete list of the questions we need to answer. Let’s work to flesh out this list and answer these questions for any serialization formats we consider for MTI, not just for JSON.
sean
On 10/9/15, 12:32 PM, "cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of Wunder, John A." <cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of jwunder@mitre.org> wrote:
These are great questions!
How will the JSON (or RDF) serialization work with the XML-based extensions we use now?
How will JSON (and RDF) handle digital signatures?
In terms of time to produce the schemas, it took me about an hour to put together the examples (schema + content) that I posted a few days ago. They were against a small part of STIX. I would estimate it’s like 60 hours to produce the STIX/CybOX schemas plus (since this is a manual mapping) 60 hours to review. Assuming we develop an RDF-based high-level model you could almost certainly automate that, though. And of course if you go with RDF serialization this process is essentially free.
John
On Oct 9, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Jerome Athias <athiasjerome@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
do someone could provide a cost/time estimation regarding the
translation of STIX (and the other used schemas, including extensions,
e.g. CybOX, MAEC, or CVE, CAPEC, CIQ...) into JSON schemas?
would JSON could easily transport XML chunks?
is there a JSON mechanism to cover a requirement related to
signature/encryption for data objects somehow like XMLDSIG/XAdES?
2015-10-09 18:58 GMT+03:00 Jordan, Bret <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com>:
There needs to be one and only one on-the-wire serialization for the default
case which is probably 90+% maybe as high as 95+% of the market. There will
also need to be an option for an additional on-the-wire serialization to
support super high bandwidth conditions where something like Protobuf or
Cap-n-Proto would be the logical choice. If we do NOT have a default
serialization that everyone can just use and it just works (think DLNA for
security tools) then all of this is for not and we might as well go back to
our day jobs.
To be clear:
1) We need a high level format like UML to represent the data model. I
personally like UML as it is something that data modelers can live with and
developers / implementers can still use and understand. It also does not
require massively expensive modeling tools to look at or understand.
2) We need a very expressive and yet intuitive data model that is easy to
understand but allows rich documentation of threats, their relationships,
and sightings.
3) I personally do not believe we need a strict serialization binding from
the model to the on-the-wire format. A binding between UML and
JSON+JSONSchema is where we need to go.
4) My proposal is and has been: UML Data Model with JSON+JSONSchema
serialization with the option of Protobuf/Cap-n-Proto as a secondary
serialization.
Thanks,
Bret
Bret Jordan CISSP
Director of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO
Blue Coat Systems
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can
not be unscrambled is an egg."
On Oct 9, 2015, at 09:30, Shawn Riley <shawn.p.riley@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
I'm confused then. If the community is perfectly happy with an RDF/OWL w/UML
data model then that is all that is needed to use the RDF serializations. It
seems then the argument is creating additional JSON / JSONSchema on the wire
format in addition to the RDF serializations? Or is the community saying we
are ok with having an RDF/OWL w/ UML data model but you will prohibit the
community from using any of the existing RDF serializations designed to be
used with the data model?
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Wunder, John A. <jwunder@mitre.org> wrote:
I haven’t seen anybody suggest not having an abstract data model (either
via RDF, UML, or something else). Bret in particular has been careful to
maintain that we will base any serialization on a high-level model.
The question we’re tackling now is whether the on-the-wire MTI format
should be something tied directly to RDF, like JSON-LD, or something that's
indirectly tied to the high-level model via a binding specification, like
JSON with JSONSchema. Both approaches allow for an RDF-based analysis, it’s
just a question of whether an RDF-based serialization format is the best
approach for sharing data between tools when not all of them will want to do
RDF.
FWIW I’m waiting to see what Cory’s examples look like.
John
On Oct 9, 2015, at 10:55 AM, Shawn Riley <shawn.p.riley@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
I just don't see why some here are moving away from the original plan of
moving from XML to an abstract data model like RDF. We had face to face
discussions on the topic and it's been discussed repeatedly since STIX
launched. The whole reason some have been promoting STIX internationally and
across the community was because this was the future direction. I certainly
don't want to throw away the last 4 years of work on CTI in RDF and the
significant advancement in analytic tradecraft it brings. I don’t see why
this should be positioned as an either-or decision. The desires of those
wanting simple JSON serializations should be fully possible within an
RDF-based modeling approach while still enabling us to support moving
forward the state of the practice for cyber threat analysts. Please help me
understand why after more than 4 years of discussing this transition from
XML to an RDF-based modeling approach that we now have people pushing to
move the CTI effort in another direction?
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Jacobsen, Jasen W. <jasenj1@mitre.org>
wrote:
Note that the JSON they provide is JSON-LD.
And they provide a _javascript_ example of accessing the JSON-LD:
Good resource. Thanks for sharing.
- Jasen.
From: <cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Shawn Riley
Date: Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [cti-users] Towards a better understanding of JSON-LD (Was:
MTI Binding)
I wanted to share a link (below) to a blog which talks about RDF
serialization formats and while this isn't STIX specific it does use real
world data from http://opendatacommunities.org/ which is the UK Department
for Communities and Local Government's official Linked Open Data website. As
I'm sure everyone is aware both the USA and UK governments have been
champions of RDF for several years now and continue to push for open data to
made available in RDF.
is from 2012 before the JSON-LD development but it should help those looking
for more RDF data then the US Government's 7000+ RDF open data sets.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]